CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-02

Coresets Before Score Sets: Evaluation-Unsupervised Prompt Subset Selection for LLM Benchmarks

Jihan Yao, Gantavya Bhatt, Arnav Das, Peter Jin, Ke Bao, Qiaolin Yu, Khushi Bhardwaj, Chang Su, Jialei Wang, Yikai Zhu, Sugam Devare, Damon Mosk-Aoyama, Zhen Dong, Venkat Krishna Srinivasan, Yineng Zhang, Oleksii Kuchaiev, Jiantao Jiao, Banghua Zhu, Jeff Bilmes

We study LLM benchmark coreset selection: selecting a small subset of prompts over multiple benchmarks whose induced model scores and rankings approximate those obtained from the full benchmark suite. In evaluation-unsupervised benchmark coreset selection (our approach), the selection algorithm uses no model evaluation outcomes, and operates on a fine granularity by producing subsets of prompts over multiple benchmarks rather than producing a sub-collection of entire benchmarks. We use submodular subset selection, and we develop and evaluate many different submodular functions for this purpose, including determinantal point process (DPP) based approaches, submodular mutual information functions, and facility location-based functions. On a new large-scale suite of 35 heterogeneous benchmarks spanning five different capability categories, 18 frontier LLMs, and over 61K prompts, we find that the facility location (FL) function operating exclusively on inexpensive semantic prompt embeddings preserves LLM scores better than twelve separate score-based and diversity-based baselines, across a range of coreset budgets. Moreover, we show our proposed objective is not limited to the evaluation-unsupervised regime: in the setting where only a handful of whole benchmarks must be selected and a large amount of model scores are available, the same objective matches or outperforms state-of-the-art baselines on the MMLU and MTEB leaderboards, while being substantially cheaper to compute. Together, our results suggest that submodularity, in general, is a strong and reliable tool for benchmark compression.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-02

PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation

Yueqi Song, Lintang Sutawika, Jiarui Liu, Lindia Tjuatja, Jiayi Geng, Yunze Xiao, et al.

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilitie…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CL2026-06-25

Ask, Don't Judge: Binary Questions for Interpretable LLM Evaluation and Self-Improvement

Sangwoo Cho, Kushal Chawla, Pengshan Cai, Zefang Liu, Chenyang Zhu, Shi-Xiong Zhang, et al.

Evaluating LLM outputs remains a major bottleneck in NLP: human evaluation is expensive and slow, lexical metrics correlate poorly with human judgments on open-ended generation, and holistic LLM judges often produce opaque scores that are hard to debug. We propose BINEVAL, a fram…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CLcs.LGcs.SE2026-06-29

EvalSafetyGap: A Hybrid Survey and Conceptual Framework for LLM Evaluation-Safety Failures

Buğra Alperen Uluırmak, Rifat Kurban

LLM evaluation and AI safety face a shared measurement problem: benchmark scores, reward-model signals, and reported safety metrics can improve while the latent properties they are meant to represent remain difficult to verify. This paper combines a hybrid survey - a systematic s…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AIcs.LG2026-07-02

Object Aligner: A Configurable JSON Schema Similarity Score for Graphs, Applied to LLM Prompt Optimization

Jan Drchal

Large language models (LLMs) are often asked to produce JSON conforming to a fixed schema, powering information extraction, tool calling, agentic planning, and knowledge-graph construction. Measuring how closely an output matches a gold reference is essential yet surprisingly har…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-21

Beyond Score Prediction: LLM-Based Essay Scoring and Feedback Generation via Reinforcement Learning with Rubric Rewards

Xuefeng Jin, Jiashuo Zhang, Teng Cao, Bin Yang

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to automated essay scoring (AES) and automated feedback generation (AFG). However, existing studies rely primarily on prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning, while systematic research on reinforcement learning (RL) post-…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CLcs.AI2026-07-02

OpenSafeIntent: Evaluating Intent-Calibrated Safe Completion Across Dual-Use Prompt Sets

Rheeya Uppaal, Seungwoo Lyu, Selina Sung, Junjie Hu

Safe completion requires models to provide useful assistance without enabling harm, but this behavior is difficult to evaluate with isolated prompts. We introduce OpenSafeIntent, a benchmark of controlled prompt-sets that vary intent while holding the underlying task fixed. Each…

View free PDFSource page